‘Reformasi’ is now ‘Reformati’ - Khairy
SHAH ALAM - Former Umno Youth Khairy Jamaluddin says many had guessed the decision for Umno president Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s dismissal not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) for the 47 charges of criminal breach of trust, corruption and money laundering.
He said before the Cabinet was formed, many said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim would not appoint Zahid as deputy prime minister, but that assumption was proved wrong.
“After that (Zahid becoming deputy prime minister) happened, time passed and I saw many people predicted that what happened yesterday, that Zahid’s (court) case will not continue and people are just waiting for the day.
“However, although I am one of the individuals who expected it to happen, I was still shocked when it happened yesterday. It is strange.
“I felt sad for Anwar because yesterday was the 25th anniversary of ‘Reformasi’, but it has been buried with a gravestone of ‘reformati’,” he said in the Keluar Sekejap podcast programme with former Umno Information chief Shahril Sufian Hamdan on Wednesday.
Khairy said Anwar previously suffered to become prime minister and if we could see from his character, surely we want the best ending for him he was faced with such a burden.
“Maybe in PMX’s mind, in three or four years, the public will forget about it or a new issue will arise, I’m confident he made his calculation as a politician.
“Maybe he wanted the bad things to be done early and hopes it will recover,” he said.
The former Rembau MP said there were differences between the court’s decision involving Zahid and Perikatan Nasional (PN) chairman Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.
He said the function of a court was to hear the argument brought by both sides and to decide based on the explanations given.
“The role of the court is to judge, courts are not involved in the prosecution and defence of an individual.
“Zahid’s case had the courts decide based on evidence brought forward, the prosecution only proved there was a prima facie case, meaning the judge could state that there was a case to be answerable to.
“That is why the burden is on Zahid to give a statement on how he was not guilty of the charges,” he said.
Khairy explained the Attorney-General must decide with his discretion not to proceed with the trial, which he was entitled to do under the Federal Constitution.
“The difference with Muhyiddin’s case is the court rejected the charges brought by the prosecution and showed the charges were ‘stunted’ as information or offence elements in the case were insufficient,” he said.
